Sunday, 15 September 2013

Detailed Diagrams Of The Unidentified Munitions Linked To Alleged Chemical Attacks in Damascus

Over the past few weeks I have been collected detailed photographs and measurements from activists in Damascus of the UMLACA (Unidentified Munitions Linked to Alleged Chemical Attacks), hoping to piece together what is might look like. Thanks to John Ramsay, who has used those images to put together the following diagrams of what we believe the munition may look like.

The following images show close up sections of the diagram, and related photographs

Tail Section

Tail Section

Warhead Base

Warhead Base

Warhead

Warhead

Possible Dispersal Charge Arrangement

Possible Dispersal Charge Arrangement

We have a very good idea of what the rocket section and warhead base looks like, but for obvious reasons, the dispersal charge and fuze are harder to be sure about. There's also some debate over the function of the two ports at the base of the warhead, but generally it's agreed that at least one of the holes is a fill hole, used to fill the munition with the liquid payload. These diagrams are a work in progress, and will be updated as more information becomes available.

Any media organisations requiring DXF cad files of this munition for 3D animation or other graphics can contact me by email at brownmoses@gmail.com

More posted on the subject of the August 21st attacks can be found here, and other posts on chemical weapons and Syria, including extremely informative interviews with chemical weapon specialists, can be found here.

20 comments:

Ref; BM Blog-Mystery Component of the UMLACA, slide show pictures- 2 of 13, 3 of 13, and 6 of 13. Your making good progress but I don't believe the mystery component goes in the nose. I believe the nose fuze is either a proximity sensor or a standoff probe fuzing system and the mystery component goes in the empty port in the baseplate(not the filler port). I assume that this mystery component was removed from the rear port of the dud warhead and placed on the table prior to them removing the warhead from the motor. The guy in the video seems to be describing the mystery component, a translation would be nice. I have already described "generally" this component in other post so I wont go over that anymore.

1. The reason the mystery component in photo 2 of 13 looks different than all the other photos of the mystery component is because it was a dud. Also, notice the black tube on the table to the right of the mystery component. I believe that black tube is part of the mystery component outer assembly. 2. If the dud mystery component was installed in the nose of the referenced dud warhead it would be extremely damaged from impact, I can't even find a scratch on it. 3. Photo 3 of 13 shows the dud mystery component laying next to the dud warhead and this may be an attempt to show the components relative orientation to the warhead when its is installed in the port.

It all depends whether the fuse is a proximity sensor, or a computer-set variable time fuse. I don't think a stand-off probe would burst it quite high enough, unless is was ridiculously long.

This may be challenged by those used to more orthodox solutions, but this thing isn't going at supersonic speed and they might even get away with a sonic transducer of some sort for the proximity fuse. (Small tube with little holes in.)

Orthodox solution would be a doppler-radar fuse, as the Americans fit even to 60mm mortar rounds. But a 60mm mortar round approaches the ground faster than I think this thing does, so the doppler effect might not be strong enough.

A radar altimeter fuse, as on some gravity-dropped bombs, would be a bit too large and, more especially, expensive for this.

Some kind of industrial sonic or capacitive transducer, available off the shelf, not listed as an arms component, not needing very much space or very much electrical power, would also be compatible with an approach speed that might not be very much above 300 fps.

Jody, I think BM is getting the detonator ("bicycle pump") wrong. You are correct that it goes to the non-filling port. The reason there are two kinds of detonators is because the slimmer and longer one is for HE, and the shorter wider one with holes is for FAE.

Good observation about the sleeve on the table. That attaches the long rod which goes half way up the barrel to the non-filling port, and the cables come out of the 7 holes. It assures that no HE can come out and holds up the long detonator.

The mystery is how do those cables get attached to the nose fuze? Would they go up in the space between the motor and the tube? There is no evidence of that. I think the long detonator has an impact sensor, and after it is armed, it will go off upon impact.

I don't think that either propylene oxide or sarin would need to be under much pressure to keep it liquid; certainly less than in a calor gas cannister. Indeed, in the absence of a solid TNT fill, a little pressure might avoid buckling the warhead during launch. But it could be a few bar.

The main thing would be making sure everything stayed sealed, including the electrical connections.

Two-fill-hole munitions are often - but not always - associated with binary chemical weapons. To increase both safety of storage and the longevity of the chemicals themselves, binary chemical weapons are usually stored as two separate chemicals. These chemicals are far less volatile and usually non-toxic than when in their combined, weaponized form. For instance, Sarin gas usually has a shelf life of only a few weeks to a few months. It is therefore usually stored as two separate chemicals: isopropyl alcohol and isopropyl amine. These sarin-precursors would remain separated from each other until actually mixed inside the weapon itself. That is the reason many CW munitions have two fill-ports. In the cse of Sarin, isopropyl alcohol would be filled in one port, and isopropyl amine would be filled in the other, and Sarin would be produced as the two chemicals mix inside the warhead. Some more advanced designs, United States Army M687, keep the chemicals separated within the warhead as well, with mixing occurring only during the rocket's flight.

1- The burster charge as shown will cause the thrust of the burster to disperse the fuel parallel to the ground and since the rocket has impacted ground at an angle, the fuel will be spread into the ground and not backwards in the direction of the tail. The blast control plug will just be smashed into the rocket motor. There is no evidence of such a plug, and if there is one, it would be fastened to the tube and not the rocket motor.

2- There is no detonator shown if this were an FAE. The cable transit is not a socket. Sockets are very different. It is simply a cable transit as you don't need a socket when cables are available. A socket is used when you want to replace a component. The detonator is immersed in fuel and there is no way to get into the barrel to remove the detonator from the socket.

3- There is no way to bolt the top plate to the barrel front. Pictures show no bolt holes on the barrel.

4- No command cable is needed, and it will get destroyed immersed in the fuel for years.

5- The base plate is seamlessly connected to the tube in pictures. The diagram shows couple of seams that do not exist.

6- There is crimping at the barrel base. Diagram disallows that.

7- Diagram says there is no detonator. But we have seen the "bicycle pump" and it is not shown in the diagram. And the bicycle pump is always damaged. According to this diagram there will be nothing remaining of the bicycle pump.

8- does not show the heavy solid top plate we have seen in pictures and pix 6/8.

9- There is no good way to stop fuel leaks where the cable enters and exits the barrel.

[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=045_1379372264[/url]This is a video of the terrorist with the rocket in question in Gas masks/respirators firing the thing!!It is from a dead Al Nusra jihaists cell phone, killed bu YPG Kurds!

A little more general info about the "bicycle pump". I believe this item is a Cartridge Actuated Device (CAD) or a Propellant Actuated Device (PAD) and it goes in the rear port. There is only one picture of an unfired CAD/PAD "bicycle pump" and that is the one sitting on the table. All the other CAD/PAD "bicycle pumps" have functioned or partially functioned. When a CAD/PAD functions it will not look like one that has not functioned. When a CAD/PAD fires gas pressure from the powder/propellant/explosive perform a task normally be venting and focusing directional gas pressures. The holes you see in the functioned CAD/PAD "bicycle pump" are for directional venting of gasses that perform some type of task. Also, when CAD/PAD components function they tend to come apart a predetermined weak point and there will be evidence of explosive stresses being applied at this separation point.

I can positively see some tasks that this CAD/PAD (bicycle pump) could perform on a FAE warhead and also a couple possible tasks on a chemical warhead. I can think of no function or task this component would perform on a high explosive warhead that already has a nose fuze. I have never seen any basic high explosive warheads with a component like this, especially in such an odd off center location. If you noticed in the video of the possible dud high explosive warhead, the only place they are mining high explosive from is the burster housing. Based on the location of the burster in this warhead, I would assume this warhead had a nose fuze that was probably point detonating. The other material in the damaged nose looks like dirt.

I think the HE warhead is for siege warfare, battering down strong points and bunkers, so a point-detonating fuse makes sense.

The CAD/PAD presumably produces a fairly soft propellant push rather than a detonation, which is exactly what you'd want in both an FAE and a CW: sarin is quite easily denatured by violent explosions and you don't want to prematurely ignite the FAE fuel.

If it were a soft push, and the casing was indeed designed to split along a pre-determined line, than the sensible place for the CAD/PAD would be on the opposite side of the warhead from the deliberately weakened rupture line. That would empty the warhead with the lowest possible probability of premature ignition.

It would also allow efficient dispersal for the lowest possible burster energy, which seems to be essential for a sarin warhead to work.

A VX or mustard gas warhead might need something more vigorous. Syria has had mustard gas since at least 1973: I'm just hoping that they don't actually have VX, because that's going to be much harder to safely destroy than sarin.

The CAD/PAD is a professional way of doing it, and will make destruction of these weapons a bit easier than it would have been with some early cold war munitions, such as VX cluster bombs.

Already covered and the authenticity and source of the videos is highly questionable. No doubt in the future the Syrian forces will 'capture' a rebel unit with a cache of those unidentified rockets (UMLACA);)

You can also be sure that when the weapons inspectors finally get access to the chemical munition and storage sites that no trace of those unidentified rockets will be in the declared inventories ;)

Hmmmm, not sure about your analysis on this one BM. This is the only detonator I have seen that hasn't actually detonated, although it's definitely functioned; it's also been located on too many functioned UMLACAs to be a bad component. Would suggest it doesn't belong in the warhead.Also, if CW munitions need 2 filling ports, why have you filled one with a cable/plug that does not appear to have a purpose?